--Where talent and good ideas cross... badly--
Here's what I'm talking about. Pretty much all professional musicians we DiScuss here are pretty damn good. But you don't have to be a musical prodigy to be great.
For example, it doesn't take a musical talent to play a Ramones song, and yet the Ramones were brilliant. However, I don't see Joey Ramone writing a Radiohead type composition well.
Now consider: I don't think Thom Yorke and company could play garage rock as well as, say, the Ponys or Hold Steady do.
See what I'm driving at? Now, we all know what it is when the mix of talent and ideas works well... we call that a "good" album. Yeah, no shit.
But there must be cases where a performer "bites off more than he can chew." Trying too hard to be eclectic, perhaps.
Or conversely, where a Steely Dan type tries play simple old fashioned rock 'n roll and it sounds like Ryan Adams' Rock 'n Roll album, y'know, boring as fuck.
DiScuss Albums Which Were Inside/Outside of Performer's Limitations!
hmm
perhaps not entirely related (though in a way it is), I'd take The Width of a Circle over everything Led Zeppelin have ever recorded. So I'd say Bowie approaching auto-pilot could out-Zeppelin Zeppelin.
Ha! Well, I was thinking more Kula Shaker
than Led Zep, but "oh, by jingo!" The Man Who Sold The World is rather terrific.
This is a difficult area
'cos while I kind of see your point, there aare few things worse than bands sticking in a rut. Bands should push their limitations and I'd much prefer albums where a band is being insanely over-ambitious than one where they're staying in a rut.
I think where it goes wrong, however, is when a band goes into a different style of music but forgets what people liked about them in the first place. For example I'd say that Hefner's electronic stuff (even though it didn't sell too well) was largely successful because it kept the shambolic charm and lyrical and vocal idiosyncracies that made Hefner one of my favourite bands in the first place and, essentially, they still made the songs their own.
On the other hand you get acts who go into a completely different genre and write something that absolutely in no way relates to what they usually do and, whilst it's fine if they want to do that, it does mean there's absolutely no reason why their fans would necessarily like it.
I totally agree with you theguywithout
I'm just saying it doesn't always work out, eh? (As you've also indicated) So I was really trying to start a discussion on these "over-reaching" failures, etc.
Or I guess you could talk about "over-reaching" success stories as well. Fair play 'n all.
Here's another example
Remember how brilliant Catherine Wheel's first two albums were? Really fucking brilliant, right? Yeah. So after that they tried all this weird non-shoegazey stuff... and the result was pure shit.
And conversely,
When the Cult dumbed down their music on post-Love stuff... the result was, well, dumb.
That's all from me. You guys go. :)
I've not heard the record but...
I've been told by a few fans that Neil Young's "Reaktor" album is atrocious - a very ill-advised attempt to navigate electronica and synthesisers. Might actually keep an eye out for it in the sales. I could do with a laugh...
they were never meant to be muscial works of genius
reaktor and trans were attempts by young to communicate with his two sons, who both had severe cerebral palsy. To the listener though, they do sound pretty awful...
Tin Machine
A side of this which you haven't mentioned
is musicians overreaching themselves with their lyrics.
Just because a person has talent with an instrument doesn't mean they also have a gift with words. And frankly, when someone doesn't recognise this limitation, especially those ones that not only don't recognize it but also go the other way and believe themselves poetic, you get some results that are either horrific or laughable.
I'm looking at you Billy Corgan and Trent Reznor.
Lyric-writing's a really over-valued skill.
Most musicians are shit at it (and why should they necessarily be any good at it anyway?) but I think it's an important part of songs.
I'd go so far as to say the main drawback of the current culture where it's assumed bands will write their own songs is that too many people are allowed or even forced to get away with shit lyrics.
I seriously wish more bands would just admit it's their weakness and get someone from outside the band to do it.
*Under-valued, not over-valued obviously.
Agreed.
Talents that are equally adept at penning brilliant lyrics as they are brilliant melodies are extremely rare. Most people seem to settle for banality when it comes to the lyrical content of the music they love. It's not a coincidence that some of the finest lyricists have negligible musical talent (ie: no real skill in composing the music that accompanies their words). Morrissey, Richey Edwards, Ian Curtis, Fearghal McKhee, Zak De La Rocha are all good examples.
Back to topic, the Manics latest album is a desperate attempt by Nicky Wire to engage contemporary socio-political issues but this has proved to be beyond his capabilities ("I never knew the sky could be a prison!"). More research next time please, lads.
...
The Ramones sucked serious ass though.
DIE
YOU
SCUMBAG!!!!!!!!!!!